C. I. T. Corp. v. McKinney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

C. I. T. Corp. v. McKinney

254 A.D. 629, 3 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6775

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 9, 1938·Published

Opinion

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Defendants having alleged as a defense and counterclaim that plaintiff took the notes with knowledge that the giving of them was induced by fraudulent representations, the case presents an issue to be tried. (See Neg. Inst. Law, § 91, subd. 4; Id. §§ 94, 95, 97, 98. See, also, Progressive Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller & Sherry Enterprises, Inc., 246 App. Div. 639, and cases there cited.) All concur. (The order denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action on promissory notes.) Present— Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Memorandum: Defendants having alleged as a defense and counterclaim that plaintiff took the notes with knowledge that the giving of them was induced by fraudulent representations, the case presents an issue to be tried. (See Neg. Inst. Law, § 91, subd. 4; Id. §§ 94, 95, 97, 98. See, also, Progressive Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller & Sherry Enterprises, Inc., 246 App. Div. 639, and cases there cited.) All concur. (The order denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in an action on promissory notes.) Present— Sears, P. J., Crosby, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

C. I. T. Corp. v. McKinney, 254 A.D. 629, 3 N.Y.S.2d 92, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

254 A.D. 629 (C. I. T. Corp. v. McKinney) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related